Providing accurate, timely, and insightful legal commentary
Connectiuct Business Litigation Blog
Commentary on lawsuits and legal issues impacting Connecticut businesses. Authored by experienced business litigation attorney, Kane Bennett of Aeton Law Partners, LLP.
Connecticut Civil Procedure – A Law Clerk’s Perspective
Corey Dennis, a former Superior Court clerk in Connecticut, sent me an article he recently published on Connecticut civil procedure. I am posting the article, "Roadmap to Connecticut Procedure" (download here), with the permission of the Connecticut Bar Journal and Corey. The article brings the perspective of a Law Clerk who was involved with the procedural aspects of the Connecticut Superior Court on a regular basis. It is a nice summary of the basics of early motion practice in Connecticut state courts. The article also has a useful chart on distinctions between state and federal procedure in a few important areas. Corey practices complex litigation and dispute resolution at Governo Law Firm in Boston, MA.
Largest Jury Verdict In Connecticut History For Trade Secret Case
After an eight week jury trial in Waterbury Superior Court, an East Hartford based flooring solutions company,Dur-A-Flex, has been awarded 50.5 million dollars in damages for the misuse of its trade secrets by Laticrete International, a Bethany based multinational corporation. Laticrete was a former purchaser of Dur-A-Flex’s colored sand products. The jury found that the Laticrete misappropriated Dur-A-Flex’s trade secrets for the colored sand and awarded 43.7 million dollars in damages. After the jury verdict, Judge Dennis Eveleigh awarded Dur-A-Flex more than 5 million dollars for attorney’s fees in a written decision (download here). He also conditioned Laticrete’s future use of Dur-A-Flex’s technology on payment of royalty fees. The case was brought back in 2006 on the Complex Litigation Docket in Waterbury (Access court docket here). Dur-A-Flex was represented by Lawrence Rosenthal and Fletcher Thomson from Rogin Nassau’s Hartford office. Laticrete was represented by Elizabeth Stewart from Murtha Cullina’s New Haven office. Dur-A-Flex supplied color sand to Laticrete for use in Laticrete’s grout products. Laticrete was the only customer of Dur-A-Flex for the sand product. Laticrete at some point stopped buying the colored sand from Dur-A-Flex and started making an identical sand product. Dur-A-Flex claimed that Laticrete was, if fact, using Dur-A-Flex’s manufacturing process to make the sand. The jury agreed with Dur-A-Flex and found that Laticrete violated Connecticut’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Attorney Rosenthal commented on the verdict and stated he was "certain that Dur-A-Flex had been significantly damaged by Laticrete’s improper and unauthorized use of its technology." He believed the verdict was the largest ever for a trade secret case in Connecticut. I also believe this is the largest jury verdict in Connecticut history for
Complex Litigation Docket For Business Disputes In Connecticut
The Complex Litigation Docket or “CLD” is a special session of the Connecticut Superior Court designed to accommodate the needs of complex cases. The Judicial Branch published a fact sheet about the CLD. Here is a summary of the CLD facts: Designed for cases with intricate legal issues, multiple parties, or significant damages; A single judge is assigned over all aspects of the case, similar to federal court; Assignment of hearing dates for motions instead of the standard "short calendar" sessions; Judges and court officers fully supported by staff with newer technology; and Enhanced use of court-annexed mediation, include special masters. Any party, or a judge, may request a transfer of a case from the regular Superior Court docket to the CLD. A request is made by filling out and submitting an application. Any objection must be filed within 15 days. The Chief Administrative Judge of the Civil Division handles the request, and a hearing may be held to determine if referral to the CLD is appropriate. The determination for placement on the CLD is made by an evaluation of several factors listed on the fact sheet. For many business dispute or commercial cases, the CLD may be an appropriate venue rather than the regular docket. The CLD is more akin to the federal court. The benefits of a single judge assignment can be significant as it reduces delays in discovery and motion practice. The CLD judges have standing orders designed to streamline the process. Each case is also assigned a court officer who remains involved in the scheduling and administrative process. In
“I Don’t Want To Be Your Partner Anymore” …. Can That Statement End A Partnership?
After 5 years of litigation, two appeals, and one trial, the answer is…….Yes, that statement can constitute a valid offer to end a Connecticut partnership between two feuding sisters who had agreed in writing to split lottery winnings. The story of the feuding sisters has been covered by Alaine Griffin at the Hartford Courant and the local news stations (NBC CT; CBS NEWS). According to yesterday’s ruling by Connecticut Superior Court Judge Cynthia Swienton, when one sister said "I don’t want to be your partner anymore" and the other said "okay," the partnership was over and the contract rescinded. The case involved a dispute between two sisters, Terry and Rose, over a written contract that dated back to 1995. Terry split some poker winnings ($165,000) with her sister Rose and decided they needed a contract to make sure there would be a split for any future winnings. You might call the contract a paper napkin partnership agreement, but it was notarized and drafted by an accountant. It was simple and straightforward. The relevant part of the contract read: We are partners in any winning we shall receive, to be shared equally. Fast forward to 2004 and a fight over $250. The Court found that Terry said during the fight "I don’t want to be your partner anymore." Rose replied "okay." Rose then went and became partners with her brother, Joe. Of course, Joe then went out and bought a $500,000 winning Powerball ticket. Terry found out, Rose refused to pay Terry, and finally a lawsuit was filed for breach of contract. After going through the history of the relationship and finding credibility in favor of Rose,
Will Data Protection Laws Ever Catch Up To New Technology?
That was the question posed in an email newsletter I received today from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. I am a member of this group out of personal interest and to to stay on top of issues related to privacy laws and technology. One of the benefits of belonging to this group is that I get email newsletters with summaries of new laws, regulations, and lawsuits dealing with privacy issues from all over the world. Today’s email posed the question in the title of this post and featured an article from the New York Times by Natasha Singer called "Shoppers Have No Secrets." The article details the technology of "behavioral tracking" by retail and advertising businesses and how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is playing catch up when it comes to regulating this technology. Online behavioral tracking has been a hot button issue for both businesses and privacy rights groups for a few years. Natasha’s article lists several types of new tracking to include: Cameras that can follow you from the minute you enter a store to the moment you hit the checkout counter, recording every T-shirt you touch, every mannequin you ogle, every time you blow your nose or stop to tie your shoelaces. Web coupons embedded with bar codes that can identify, and alert retailers to, the search terms you used to find them. Mobile marketers that can find you near a store clothing rack, and send ads to your cellphone based on your past preferences and behavior. The article is a very good summary of the issue and has links to
YouTube Metadata Evidence in Connecticut Trademark Lawsuit
The smoking gun evidence in a trademark lawsuit filed in US District Court in Connecticut is allegedly metadata from a YouTube video. Here is the lawsuit. In the lawsuit , Tuscan Leveling, Inc. alleges that Roynette, Inc. stole its trademarked concept for a level tiling process. According to the Complaint: Tuscan is an Iowa based business that markets and provides a "unique tile installation method." Tuscan’s tiling process is subject to a pending patent and trademark application and has identified the Tuscan Leveling System as its trademark. Roynette is a Connecticut based business that markets and solicits over the Internet. Roynette advertised the sale of a competing tile leveling system over the Internet through a YouTube video that was identical to the the Tuscan leveling system. The metadata from the YouTube video shows the Tuscan Leveling System trademark in "human readable form." (Note: you can see the readable form in the attachment to the Complaint) The metadata would permit Internet consumers to search for Tuscan and end up finding the Roynette video and product. Roynette puts the product it is selling by hyperlink directly adjacent to the Tuscan trademark. The Complaint seeks damages, attorney’s fees, and an injunction. Roynette has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Nothing unusual about a YouTube video surfacing as evidence, but this one may be a first, at least in Connecticut. This case is unique because the evidence is not the video itself but the metadata with the video. Metadata is typically described as data about data. YouTube allows you to edit or add metadata to a
About CTBL
Connecticut Business Litigation is the most well-read litigation blog in the state of Connecticut. Founded by Attorney Kane Bennett in 2009, a pioneer in Attorney Marketing in the state of connecticut